Low on living, by Paul Coughlin

This posting by author Paul Coughlin is a must read by both single Christian men and by those who care about the state of affairs in the church as it relates to them.

What is important is that we think on these things and make changes to the way we relate to and teach the single Christian men in our assemblies.

Credo #80: Walk in forgiveness

It should not require stating, but it does: Walking in forgiveness does not mean being in agreement with your accuser. It does not mean that you are obliged to be a foot-cleaning mat for someone. It does not mean that you are obliged to not react when you are wronged — though I think you are wise to choose the time, place, and manner of your response when you are wronged. It means just what it means: That you walk in forgiveness.

Relationship tip #8

I wish I could take credit for this, but credit where credit is due:  Anakin once again hits one out of the ballpark. To summarize his post as a relationship tip, I might word it thusly: “Find out if she understands Grace.”

Out and about

Singlextianman is at large in the world; the Southern Hemisphere to be imprecise.    On a personal note, I wonder if I will be returning to Asia in the coming year.    

..It so happens that I have seen something in my past travels in Cambodia which I wish to offer for your consideration:    An American televangelist on the TV set in my hotel room, asking for money.    I have seen some things in the place where I am that have put me in mind of that experience. 

..It is very easy to hold things up and say “see, look at this… look at this.  Tsk. Tsk.”    It is also very easy to say something like “it’s not my problem; not my watch.”  (Which very likely is true).  

Love covers.  And love also reveals.    The Christian witness is not one of being silent about things in the fellowship which ought not to be.   Neither is it one of seeing only that which is in need of adjustment or setting right; or setting aside.

I just wish to encourage you to not lose heart; and to be of good cheer.   He has overcome the world.  Your faith is not rooted in the behaviours of others.  Be mindful of how you look as well.

Credo #81: Do not receive shame

Certainly the  big-C “Church” is an organization with discipline.  We know from the scriptures that “The Lord chastens those whom He loves.”    We also know that manifestations of the Body of Christ in our own little lives and neighborhoods are made up of people, and that organizations of people both need and prosper with sound leadership and guidance, including proper action when its members create difficulties for the assembly; or even betimes with behaviours that only trouble themselves.    There is disputation with the community of Christian faith as to how to order our assemblies and the degree to which the pastoral and teaching offices have a say (and what they have a say about) in the lives of other believers.

This Credo is one in which I am so concious of my limitations as a thinker and believer.    I wish to recognize those facts that I have stated, yet I wish to impress the balancing counter-point as well; which is also of such extreme importance.   It is particularly true if the believers in your circle are those who are touched with the idea that you, as a Single Christian Man, are somewhat less in standing as a believer because of your marital state.   It is also true for those traditions and understandings which rely heavily upon guilt and social pressure to mold the actions and thoughts of its members.

With all these thoughts and caveats, here is what I am trying to say:  Do not receive shame if you have done nothing shameful.      As an obiter, I will add that if you have done something sinful, the response of the fellowship should rarely, if ever, be to go immediately to the wagging finger.  That is a topic for another post.

Let me reiterate my encouragement to you, expressed slightly differently:  If you have done nothing shameful, do not receive shame.

Married = adult?

I tire of even explaining it to some, but I continue to see in print and in people’s actions the idea that an unmarried man is, effectively, a child. I am, so to speak, a pronuptialist — I believe that marriage is God ordained and that done well is a blessing to both parties. That all being said, the act of marriage — or the fact of being married — is not what makes a man healthy, wealthy, wise, spiritual, etc.

…. Just this past Sunday I was in a Baptist fellowship wherein elections were being held to fill slots for the office of deacon. The sermon was upon the role of deacon, and the necessary qualifications for this office, drawing from I Timothy and Acts. It so happens that this particular church was o.k. with the idea of a Christian man who was divorced and remarried standing in that role, even if it was not a divorce in which he was biblically free to remarry. Their particular conception of this matter was to consider where the man’s life was at the time of his election to the deaconship; was he a living demonstration of God’s redemptive work, etc. Some other fellowships and denominations would have a different understanding.

The interesting thing to me was that the notion that a man might be single — divorced or otherwise — and stand in this office — this idea was skipped over. The exegete in the pulpit was able to examine the notion in 1 Timothy that a deacon must be the “husband of one wife” from a variety of perspectives by way of fully fleshing out the topic, as some Baptists are wont to do.

Timothy was single; apparently he would not have been able to stand in the office of deacon at this fellowship.

Now, certainly there is room to examine the value of a man who is married standing in a church office in which a component of his service is to speak to people in like circumstance. Consider, though, that this assumes certain duties of an elder that might in fact be labeled “pastoral.” I will leave that controversy aside and leave you with the point about single men.

HT to Anakin for a fine post here, on a kindred subject.

Relationship tip #9

This secular fellow has some good ideas about what to ask a prospective bride.

Relationship tip #10

If you espy a lady in an on-line introductions service who says something like this in her profile….

“…I’m looking for a nice Christian man to go to church with….’

..Then you should proceed with caution. You were not redeemed to be a fashion accessory. And a lady who thinks God’s work in you is to cause you to be ‘nice’ (as opposed to ‘good’) may not have carefully parsed out all that she must to have a relationship with you. However she may simply be using language in a careless fashion, so extending a little grace may be in order. But keep these ideas in mind.

Relationship tip #11

Ask the lady across the table from you if she believes that women have an old nature; or use suitable language of your choice to get at the same idea: Are women (as men are) creatures who have fallen short because of the sin nature in all humans? You know what conclusions you can reach if she has never considered this question or does not understand it.

Brain teaser #12

The goal of this post is to make some sisters think, not to get sidetracked into a discussion about adultery.

Everyone’s heard “…whoever looks after a woman lustfully has committed adultery with her in his heart…….“

Many Evangelicals are quick, then, to conclude that the lustful look is adultery, right? Well, yes and no. If you pressed them to come out and say that a woman can divorce her husband for this “lustful look” — as they would for the physical act — they would hem and haw and change the subject rather than directly answer this provocative question. This is because nearly every one of them intuitively understands that this passage is about either the nature of sin or the nature of the law. To even tread here, though, is to give someone an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to holiness or something by making sure to get a jab in about adultery. Such a one might be sidetracked by asking him (or her) if a man can divorce his wife for a “lustful look.” That might steady them up a moment or two. However this is all just warm up material….and thus we will pass by all this and get to my real topic for this posting….

Consider a woman who has a child out of wedlock, a believing sister. Is a believing man free to marry her, or must she be passed by because she has become spiritually one with someone to whom she is not married in the temporal and legal sense — the sense of the word “marriage” in the epistles?

How about a sister who has been one with someone, but has not borne a child?

I’m not looking for your help, here. I’m looking to make your brain cells turn over.